Dinosaurs On Noahs Arc...

[BrassFusion]

this is rote.

Im asking for detail.

and I take it your leaning back on Nicean legend? there is more to that story.....

rote?

excuse me?

trust when I say i didn't quote that from anywhere.

[Steven]

rote?

excuse me?

trust when I say i didn't quote that from anywhere.

ok a different angle is required here then I suppose....

what would you say then Erin, equates to written text being "antiquated?" in relation to what? Is that statement open to rebuttal with an example of social relevancy or will it simply be dismissed because Brass said so? Explain the rules to me....

and - qualification of authorship?

what qualifies an author, in general?

and does this apply to all writings or only to this biblical cannonized text? and if not - why not?

is it your opinion that hte bible was written by a bunch of vagabond loinclothed sheepherders?

for example what can you tell me about a man named Saul of Tarsus who wrote a great deal fo the New Testament - tell me about his lack of qualifications or his background in general, his education level, his place in society, etc etc etc.

and what is random? explain the random process to me. feels like shuffling a deck of cards but I dont think thats what you mean.

[Scary Guy]

same question then (because the old and new testaments parallel each other: What is it? (remember I'm speaking to a head spinner)

What is this? Bible trivia time? Fine I'll play along.

Obviously it's the first half of the bible that highlights the "fire and brimstone" days vs. the second half when God gets all lovey on everything and contradicts a lot of what was mentioned in the first half of the bible.

Now aren't you happy you asked?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/pau...radictions.html <--quick and dirty reference

[Steven]

What is this? Bible trivia time? Fine I'll play along.

Obviously it's the first half of the bible that highlights the "fire and brimstone" days vs. the second half when God gets all lovey on everything and contradicts a lot of what was mentioned in the first half of the bible.

Now aren't you happy you asked?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/pau...radictions.html <--quick and dirty reference

are you really missing my point here or are you just rebuking a challenge?

These generalities your using - they lead me back to my original counter: that many naysayers often cant or wont offer up much beyond "its bullshit".

and this wasent trivia I was asking you for Dude - I was simply asking for some very (very) basic understanding of the structure and content in that which you seem to so vehemently disagree with.

Trivia is like, tell me the capitol city of Arkansas.

I'm not playing a game with you - Im no a game player Im a straight shooter, and im asking you a straight up question - tell me about - YOU tell me about (no links please) that which you have a problem with. Dont tell me nonesense like "fire and brimstone" and "lovey dovey days" because your being INCREDIBLY selective and to use that argument you have to disregard a great deal of both old and new testament writings.

Something you may want to note about me Scary: when you get into this sort of biblical or christian bashing I'm not going to get pulled into a big macho fest. I'm simply going to ask you to give me something to chew on besides the same tired old emotionally charged anti christian rhetoric.

however, we can dump this whole thing now if you'd like. I dont think we really got anywhere with it do you?

[BrassFusion]

ok a different angle is required here then I suppose....

what would you say then Erin, equates to written text being "antiquated?" in relation to what? Is that statement open to rebuttal with an example of social relevancy or will it simply be dismissed because Brass said so? Explain the rules to me....

Most of the books in the Bible are more than two thousand years old, and none of them include a deference to progress and science- like the Prajna of the Buddhist Eightfold Path. Instead we have a reference to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and that it's a sin to eat from it. Not WHY it's a sin, exactly, but you get the idea. I don't think it's a coincidence. They want us to keep swallowing the same bullshit lies without question.

and - qualification of authorship?

what qualifies an author, in general?

and does this apply to all writings or only to this biblical cannonized text? and if not - why not?

is it your opinion that hte bible was written by a bunch of vagabond loinclothed sheepherders?

for example what can you tell me about a man named Saul of Tarsus who wrote a great deal fo the New Testament - tell me about his lack of qualifications or his background in general, his education level, his place in society, etc etc etc.

When you're writing a text that says who's going to heaven and who's going to hell and what you have to do to go either direction, you need to be the one who literally enforces or even wrote those rules. And when I say enforces, I don't MEAN Jimmy Swaggart telling us who's gonna be saved when Gabe blows his horn. I mean who decides who's ACTUALLY going to be saved.

So no one was qualified to write Revelations.

As for Genesis, no one was there cept God and Adam and Eve (so the story goes), and I know that none of them are given credit for writing it. If Moses actually wrote the first five books, he was on peyote anyway. He could've pulled the entirety of it straight out of his ass. And any prophecies you THINK he made that came true were either

A. Too vague to be directly related to the actual event, or

B. Added to the texts after they actually happened (SCANDALOUS!!).

This goes for pretty much every prophecy in the Bible (with the exception of Revelations). We've no way to prove they aren't conveniently self-fulfilling... UNLESS ancient texts describing a unique prophecy have been discovered and carbon dated to a period long before a highly similar- similar to the point of probable coincidental impossibility- event occured.

and what is random? explain the random process to me. feels like shuffling a deck of cards but I dont think thats what you mean.

The universe is random. Life is random. Creation is random. Death is random. Science and mathematics are NOT random because we've engineered them not to be.

Ok- I digress. I said "random" but I'm not sure that was the best choice of words. Let's just say the biblical texts were canonized without regard so much as to accuracy and objectivity as the whim of the councils deciding what to canonize, a la "Which books can we include in the Bible that will keep the minions pacified in general, but still scared enough to give us money for forever?"

Edit, in response to something you accused Scary Guy of:

We're not Christian bashing. We're willful-ignorance bashing.

[phee]

Most of the books in the Bible are more than two thousand years old, and none of them include a deference to progress and science- like the Prajna of the Buddhist Eightfold Path. Instead we have a reference to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and that it's a sin to eat from it. Not WHY it's a sin, exactly, but you get the idea. I don't think it's a coincidence. They want us to keep swallowing the same bullshit lies without question.

When you're writing a text that says who's going to heaven and who's going to hell and what you have to do to go either direction, you need to be the one who literally enforces or even wrote those rules. And when I say enforces, I don't MEAN Jimmy Swaggart telling us who's gonna be saved when Gabe blows his horn. I mean who decides who's ACTUALLY going to be saved.

So no one was qualified to write Revelations.

As for Genesis, no one was there cept God and Adam and Eve (so the story goes), and I know that none of them are given credit for writing it. If Moses actually wrote the first five books, he was on peyote anyway. He could've pulled the entirety of it straight out of his ass. And any prophecies you THINK he made that came true were either

A. Too vague to be directly related to the actual event, or

B. Added to the texts after they actually happened (SCANDALOUS!!).

This goes for pretty much every prophecy in the Bible (with the exception of Revelations). We've no way to prove they aren't conveniently self-fulfilling... UNLESS ancient texts describing a unique prophecy have been discovered and carbon dated to a period long before a highly similar- similar to the point of probable coincidental impossibility- event occured.

The universe is random. Life is random. Creation is random. Death is random. Science and mathematics are NOT random because we've engineered them not to be.

Ok- I digress. I said "random" but I'm not sure that was the best choice of words. Let's just say the biblical texts were canonized without regard so much as to accuracy and objectivity as the whim of the councils deciding what to canonize, a la "Which books can we include in the Bible that will keep the minions pacified in general, but still scared enough to give us money for forever?"

Edit, in response to something you accused Scary Guy of:

We're not Christian bashing. We're willful-ignorance bashing.

Good post miss

[Steven]

Most of the books in the Bible are more than two thousand years old, and none of them include a deference to progress and science- like the Prajna of the Buddhist Eightfold Path. Instead we have a reference to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and that it's a sin to eat from it. Not WHY it's a sin, exactly, but you get the idea. I don't think it's a coincidence. They want us to keep swallowing the same bullshit lies without question.

When you're writing a text that says who's going to heaven and who's going to hell and what you have to do to go either direction, you need to be the one who literally enforces or even wrote those rules. And when I say enforces, I don't MEAN Jimmy Swaggart telling us who's gonna be saved when Gabe blows his horn. I mean who decides who's ACTUALLY going to be saved.

So no one was qualified to write Revelations.

As for Genesis, no one was there cept God and Adam and Eve (so the story goes), and I know that none of them are given credit for writing it. If Moses actually wrote the first five books, he was on peyote anyway. He could've pulled the entirety of it straight out of his ass. And any prophecies you THINK he made that came true were either

A. Too vague to be directly related to the actual event, or

B. Added to the texts after they actually happened (SCANDALOUS!!).

This goes for pretty much every prophecy in the Bible (with the exception of Revelations). We've no way to prove they aren't conveniently self-fulfilling... UNLESS ancient texts describing a unique prophecy have been discovered and carbon dated to a period long before a highly similar- similar to the point of probable coincidental impossibility- event occured.

The universe is random. Life is random. Creation is random. Death is random. Science and mathematics are NOT random because we've engineered them not to be.

Ok- I digress. I said "random" but I'm not sure that was the best choice of words. Let's just say the biblical texts were canonized without regard so much as to accuracy and objectivity as the whim of the councils deciding what to canonize, a la "Which books can we include in the Bible that will keep the minions pacified in general, but still scared enough to give us money for forever?"

Edit, in response to something you accused Scary Guy of:

We're not Christian bashing. We're willful-ignorance bashing.

so then here is our dillema Erin, once again we're taking sides on choosing what is valuable.

For example you point toward a scientific approach to being able to measure value.

I see a relational and social value to the scriptures.

I also see a healthy spritual mechanism - but again - that sort of treasure is individually measured. For someone like you - it seems to mean very little. But for someone like me, I've built a lifestyle and relationship style on it, i use it in everything I do, and its brought me a great deal of peace of mind, purpose, and health.

I also see millions of people who likewise, place value in those things that i do.

now that to me - is progress, the progression of the human being, in my case I suppose I would say I used to be person A, who has sinced progressed into being person B, who now has much better relationships, work success, music success, acquisition success, family success, risk success, creativity sucess than I had before my exploration of this so called faith.

I'm not even saying that this is the ONLY way to create personal progress, I'm simply saying that in my case (and in the case of many others) this atiquity has worked very well. Therefore I would argue that it has relevancy to the modern day persona, for those who choose to explore it. Is that science? I dont know. Perhaps a form of social science maybe. And maybe not. But you and I measure things with different toolsets. And I trust mine as impliccitly as you trust yours. I know mine works. I also know its not the fear based system many have tried to tag me with.

as for the writers of who gets to go where....actually there is very little of that in there isint there? What is the Bible after all? a collection of parralel historical data (with tremendous depth I might add), major and minor prophetical books, common sense proverbs (which are still absolutely relevant to modern man) songs, poems, and letters. That's it. Thats the Bible. It was like pulling teeth to get anybody to say that simple description.

I disagree with the rule of authority as you present it however. I respect what your saying, I just don't need what you need, to accept it as having anything potentially valid to it. And so again - were really divided among personal value boundries, not science. It is our personal feeligns that dictate where we hold our positions.

an interesting side note about Moses since you brought him up: Quite a story on that cat, buried in the reeds by a Hebrew, adopted as a Egyptian prince, slow of tounge and yet powerful in presence, educated in his substitute environment, quite a story there........only his writings describe his own shortcomings, failures, shame, and even an account of God being so fed up with his lack of backbone that he was going to kill him until his wife interceded on his behalf. I would think tha tif the writer was corruptible, he'd do a little damage control on his own reputation dont you? By the way Moses wasent a prophet.

on prophesy itself being vague, take a look at the life and person of Christ and some fo the prophesies concerning him in the old testament - there are alot of details that beg to differ with your vagueness theory.

as for the carbon dating thingy....your own science will only give you about 50 thousand years worth of credibility. But we date thigns in the millions of years. We use carbon dating for reference for things WAY beyond the 50,000 year limit and call it proof. Science requires some faith too Brass.

and finally - Listen Erin let's be real, you are perhaps the grand champion of taking shots, and when it comes to christians and biblical things in general, a great deal of personal pot shotting goes on in here all the time. I'd actually respect you more if you just stuck to your delivery style as opposed to throwing a PC sounding cleanup statement like "willful ignorance" bashing. I am willful, yes. Ignorant, no. Let the bashign continue....(it will anyway)

[BrassFusion]

You've got a really sugar-coated version of the bible going on. It is NOT "common sense" to deny rights to people based on race, creed, nationality, gender and sexuality, and the bible advocates all that and more. Your religion does more harm than good; any spiritual benefits you feel you've gleaned could've been found through a different medium. You're stronger and smarter than that. MOST people aren't- but even their lives could be better if they abandoned blind faith.

[Scary Guy]

Well at least it's being kept peaceful here still (although don't ever call me dude, you even capitalized it, but I'll be the bigger man and let it slide this time).

Great tactic though on calling me on my bible knowledge. "He doesn't know what he's talking about so lets just ignore what he has to say". Maybe not in those exact words but more or less that's what's going on.

I haven't read the Koran either but I'm pretty sure that's full of lots of BS too. Though again probably not all BS and in relation to the Bible I'm not sure if it's got more or less.

If a bolt of lighting hit the ground and there in place of a scorch mark lay the Bible I might be more apt to accept it as HOLY GOOD GOD HELL!!!!

....You guys won't believe what just happened.

J/K :D

[torn asunder]

an interesting side note about Moses since you brought him up: Quite a story on that cat, buried in the reeds by a Hebrew, adopted as a Egyptian prince, slow of tounge and yet powerful in presence, educated in his substitute environment, quite a story there........only his writings describe his own shortcomings, failures, shame, and even an account of God being so fed up with his lack of backbone that he was going to kill him until his wife interceded on his behalf. I would think tha tif the writer was corruptible, he'd do a little damage control on his own reputation dont you? By the way Moses wasent a prophet.

i still find it unfathomable that 1) god gets fed up, 2) tha god gets fed up enough to kill a specific man, 3) that a man who'd frustrated god enough for god to want to kill him could be "saved" by his wife! why isn't his wife a prophet? apparently, she can out-debate god himself! i think that would be worthy of some kind of elevated status... i mean, really - is that to imply that i can change god's mind, if i debate something with him? doesn't that preclude him from being an omnipotent deity? 4) god gets fed up enough to kill someone!?!?! he sounds like he could use some therapy - what kind of god needs therapy, and why would i trust him with my life & eteranl soul, when he might just get sick of my screwing up & say "fuck it, i'm tired of him, he's going to hell!!"

on prophesy itself being vague, take a look at the life and person of Christ and some fo the prophesies concerning him in the old testament - there are alot of details that beg to differ with your vagueness theory.

since i can't recall off-hand, was the old testament written before christ's birth? or maybe i should ask, was the version of the old testament that's been included in the updated/current "edition" of the times, written after christ's birth/life/death. hindsight writing can be very accurate...

as for the carbon dating thingy....your own science will only give you about 50 thousand years worth of credibility. But we date thigns in the millions of years. We use carbon dating for reference for things WAY beyond the 50,000 year limit and call it proof. Science requires some faith too Brass.

according to the bible, carbon dating should cover everything on the planet, since it's only been around 6000 yrs...

[Steven]

You've got a really sugar-coated version of the bible going on. It is NOT "common sense" to deny rights to people based on race, creed, nationality, gender and sexuality, and the bible advocates all that and more. Your religion does more harm than good; any spiritual benefits you feel you've gleaned could've been found through a different medium. You're stronger and smarter than that. MOST people aren't- but even their lives could be better if they abandoned blind faith.

trust me Brass I'm no stranger to what your referencing, but I dont neccesarily tow the line the way you think I might, and there is no sugar coating going on. I also say that because you refer to "my religion" - and I'm not religous and you should know that about me by now. Everythign I do, say, think, feel and express is purely instinctual based on what I've learned over the years, its not gleaned from a rulebook. All I can tell you is that a tremendous amout of good has come from my pursuit of Christ and the scriptural text, and I've harmed none of you, or anybody else, in the name of God or Jesus.

(if I am the exception then the exception exists.)

[Steven]

Great tactic though on calling me on my bible knowledge. "He doesn't know what he's talking about so lets just ignore what he has to say". Maybe not in those exact words but more or less that's what's going on.

you have completely missed the point.

you have heard me many times talk about the relational approach to spirituality and to scripture. Think about that.

Your potential accumulation of data was and is not important to me. Data is powerless, which is one of the reasons why I never quote scripture, thats a waste of all of our time.

[Scary Guy]

you have completely missed the point.

you have heard me many times talk about the relational approach to spirituality and to scripture. Think about that.

Your potential accumulation of data was and is not important to me. Data is powerless, which is one of the reasons why I never quote scripture, thats a waste of all of our time.

But quoting scripture can be a good thing. At least if it's good scripture that makes sense logically.

Spirituality and scripture have almost nothing to do with each other though. The first is the faith one has in a religion and the second is the laws defined by that religion. One can exist without the other obviously.

Scripture is data and if the data doesn't add up then it reflects poorly on the religion. The old data is obsolete and needs to be replaced by new data or just cut off because of all the discrepancies with the newer data. Also the data is not powerless obviously because lots of bible thumpers would do whatever it commanded.

Maybe I'm missing the point because I'm being too scientific about it. But that is never a bad thing because one can't be scientific enough IMO.

[Steven]

i still find it unfathomable that 1) god gets fed up, 2) tha god gets fed up enough to kill a specific man, 3) that a man who'd frustrated god enough for god to want to kill him could be "saved" by his wife! why isn't his wife a prophet? apparently, she can out-debate god himself! i think that would be worthy of some kind of elevated status... i mean, really - is that to imply that i can change god's mind, if i debate something with him? doesn't that preclude him from being an omnipotent deity? 4) god gets fed up enough to kill someone!?!?! he sounds like he could use some therapy - what kind of god needs therapy, and why would i trust him with my life & eteranl soul, when he might just get sick of my screwing up & say "fuck it, i'm tired of him, he's going to hell!!"

since i can't recall off-hand, was the old testament written before christ's birth? or maybe i should ask, was the version of the old testament that's been included in the updated/current "edition" of the times, written after christ's birth/life/death. hindsight writing can be very accurate...

according to the bible, carbon dating should cover everything on the planet, since it's only been around 6000 yrs...

Mike I answered this earlier and hit send and off it went into cyberspace limbo....

so heres a 2nd shot at some quickie repsonses....

1) I dont find it unthinkable that God can get fed up. I get fed up. Enough to kill you? no. but im not God. ANyway it may (or may not) suprise you to hear that there are things biblically rooted that bother me - people sometimes think their goign to direct me to somethign I had n o knowledge of in the text, trust me I know its there.

2) Moses' wife was not a prophet because she was not a prophet. Sorta lik eIm not tall because Im short. I iz what I iz, or - aint. Being a prophet merely means that you are able to fortell future events as relates to the whole YHWH thing. By teh way being a prophet in those days was very seldom an elavted position of stature. prophets were often stoned, driven form their communities, loathed, feared, hated, beheaded, etc. Tough gig.

3) Although YES there is scriptural evidence of God "changing his mind" based on interaction (dialogue) with humans that is not what happend with Moses wife. Moses had a problem applying certain YHWH breathed mandates to himself and or his household. He also had issues with pride. he disobeyed a direct order when it came to circumcision for his Son. So God was going to kill him. Why? I dont know, ask God. Moses' wife interceded by stepping up to the plate and doing what Moses was supposed to do.

4) Does God need couseling? If God exists, and really did author all that is, I pretty much figure he can make the rules as its his universe and I just live in it.

5) Why trust him? I cant answer that personal call for you. I can say however, that I dont trust mankind, I dont trust you, I dont trust governments, I dont trust science, I dont trust social systems, I dont trust relative truth, I dont trust religion, I dont even completely trust ME, and I'm rather fond of me.

6) Yes the Old testament was written long before Christ, and vitrually all but Revelations of the New testament is hindsight writing. If you decide to ever (if you have not allready) perhaps research online for archeological evidence of anitquated and varying aged manuscript copies having translation onsistency you'll find very credible and scinetific arguments both Pro and Con. Same goes for general archeological evidence that supports biblical recorded accounts like say, the story of Joseph. So you'll have to do some choosing. I allready did.

7) this fallacy of the Bible explaining the earths age is just that - a fallacy. When you get into the order of "time" or measurements of time in the genesis account you have an introduction of order and willful authorship - that is what the timeline is intended for. As you continue to peruse the bible for further evidence that the Gospel message is revealed or supported through similar earth age measurements you'll find none. You also do not find the importance or decalration of age of earth's creation account ever coming to light in biblical patriarch's messages to their people's. It literally "just doesent matter". yes the bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and that a day to God is LIKE a thousand years to man, but again that reference is not given as a measuring device when you look at the passage.

[Steven]

But quoting scripture can be a good thing. At least if it's good scripture that makes sense logically.

Spirituality and scripture have almost nothing to do with each other though. The first is the faith one has in a religion and the second is the laws defined by that religion. One can exist without the other obviously.

Scripture is data and if the data doesn't add up then it reflects poorly on the religion. The old data is obsolete and needs to be replaced by new data or just cut off because of all the discrepancies with the newer data. Also the data is not powerless obviously because lots of bible thumpers would do whatever it commanded.

Maybe I'm missing the point because I'm being too scientific about it. But that is never a bad thing because one can't be scientific enough IMO.

this is why I know you have not spent much time in scripture, which is not stated as a judgment call but as an observation:

a) because you cite a "rulebook" which scripture is not.

b) because you don't yet understand that this "data" found in scripture is designed to promote self reflection, in the spirit of liberty.

[Scary Guy]

this is why I know you have not spent much time in scripture, which is not stated as a judgment call but as an observation:

a) because you cite a "rulebook" which scripture is not.

b) because you don't yet understand that this "data" found in scripture is designed to promote self reflection, in the spirit of liberty.

But it is a rule book, that's the whole point of it. It's god's will directed to man in a book. Maybe you have a different view on it but it doesn't mean mine is wrong. My view just tends to be a bit more logical.

[Steven]

But it is a rule book, that's the whole point of it. It's god's will directed to man in a book. Maybe you have a different view on it but it doesn't mean mine is wrong. My view just tends to be a bit more logical.

if that is indeed the case Scary, then why is it that Im "allowed" to lead the lifestyle that I do?

I hang out in Bars and ply loud rock music.

I drink.

I smoke. (well I used to, I quit two weeks ago but thats because I felt shitty every morning hacking)

I cuss

I hang with people that do not go to church

Im into tats and peircings and music and many things that are not in any way christianeze or churchy.

the majority of those that Im close to are NOT christians.

I dont fit any mold other than my self declared christian status.

every one of these thigns I just listed is technically "against the rules" right?

so how does this work?

and....

do I sound in any way, scared of a wrathful god or fearful of my soul's status? Have I EVER presented myself that way?

[Scary Guy]

if that is indeed the case Scary, then why is it that Im "allowed" to lead the lifestyle that I do?

I hang out in Bars and ply loud rock music.

I drink.

I smoke. (well I used to, I quit two weeks ago but thats because I felt shitty every morning hacking)

I cuss

I hang with people that do not go to church

Im into tats and peircings and music and many things that are not in any way christianeze or churchy.

the majority of those that Im close to are NOT christians.

I dont fit any mold other than my self declared christian status.

every one of these thigns I just listed is technically "against the rules" right?

so how does this work?

and....

do I sound in any way, scared of a wrathful god or fearful of my soul's status? Have I EVER presented myself that way?

So you don't follow it exactly. That's your choice and the fact that you're not scared is similar to the reason I'm not scared. We're good people, at least for the most part. You're not afraid because you accept him and he forgives you. I'm not afraid because I don't accept him and if he doesn't let me in just because I don't accept him then I don't want to be a part of his club anyway.

I just hope he isn't all seeing and knowing because that would mean he would know which of us were going to hell at birth (hell at creation) and that would make him truly an evil bastard.

[phee]

So you don't follow it exactly. That's your choice and the fact that you're not scared is similar to the reason I'm not scared. We're good people, at least for the most part. You're not afraid because you accept him and he forgives you. I'm not afraid because I don't accept him and if he doesn't let me in just because I don't accept him then I don't want to be a part of his club anyway.

I just hope he isn't all seeing and knowing because that would mean he would know which of us were going to hell at birth (hell at creation) and that would make him truly an evil bastard.

Ahh... now you bring up the idea of predestination that the Puritans believed in as spread over Europe by Calvin.... I always thought that whole idea was a bit freaky

[Scary Guy]

Ahh... now you bring up the idea of predestination that the Puritans believed in as spread over Europe by Calvin.... I always thought that whole idea was a bit freaky

What, there are others that think similar to what I do? More info is requested.

[phee]

What, there are others that think similar to what I do? More info is requested.

# Theology.

1. The doctrine that God has foreordained all things, especially that God has elected certain souls to eternal salvation.

2. The divine decree foreordaining all souls to either salvation or damnation.

3. The act of God foreordaining all things gone before and to come.

[phee]

John Calvin

Jean Cauvin (French)

Dates:

Born: 1509

Died: 1564

Biography:

John Calvin was one of the early leaders of the Protestant Reformation and played an important role in the development of one of the main branches of Protestantism, known as the Reformed Tradition. Calvin has become more widely known because of his uncompromising theological and moral positions and for instituting a harsh, repressive theocratic government in Geneva. Trained in law and never a priest, he nevertheless compiled one of the most systematic Protestant theological systems.

In 1533, John Calvin experienced a powerful religious conversion which convinced him, on the one hand, of the absolute glory and power of God and, on the other hand, of the absolute sinfulness and depravity of human beings. It was in Basel, Switzerland, where he had fled from the Catholic persecution of Evangelicals in France, that he wrote his famous Institutes of Christian Religion, a book which would play an important role not only in the development of religion in France, but also of French language through the 17th century.

While visiting Geneva, he met up with a number of Protestant reformers who were seeking help in implementing their ideas through the town council (which they happened to control). Calvin wrote down a list of strict regulations which required, in part, that all citizens submit to the profession of faith created by the council. This made him very unpopular and he had to flee, but he was invited to return again in 1541.

For Calvin, this return was the opportunity to do what he most wanted: reconstruct the community along the lines of Old Testament social and moral standards. All forms of pleasure, like dancing and gaming, were forbidden and terrible punishments were issued for even minor religious offenses. The most serious religious offenses, however, were those which suggested that a person was "backsliding" into Catholic "superstition."

Of course, it isn't true that Calvin was a "dictator" of Geneva - he never held political office. He himself was always answerable to the city council and it was not unusual for the council to disagree with and oppose him. However, his ideas did have enormous influence and his responsibility for what happened cannot be dismissed.

Not everyone approved of Calvin's changes, but they were tortured and killed if they were caught. One famous dissenter was Michael Servetus (1511-1553), a physician who also wrote about theology and politics. His basic argument was that state and church should not be combined - it was wrong when Constantine originally did it and it was wrong now that Calvin was doing it. He was burned very slowly at a stake and this event has become a symbol for all of the religious repression which occurred.

They first key to understanding Calvin's Reformation theology is his early religious experience: that humans and God are at polar opposites with regards to power and morality. God is absolutely sovereign - nothing can happen without God wanting it to happen and nothing that God wants to happen can fail to be good. God is the absolute standard of everything. Humans, on the other hand, are absolutely powerless - they cannot cause anything to happen out of their own will and desire and they especially cannot cause anything good to happen because, in addition to being powerless, they are also completely depraved and sinful.

So why does sin exist? Calvin taught that, it exists because God wants it to exist - but for the purpose of achieving some greater good. This led Calvin to develop the idea of predestination: some people are predestined to be saved while others are predestined to be damned. No one can cause themselves to be saved or damned, only God can do that. All Christian theologians, from Paul through Augustine and Aquinas, had taught some form of predestination - but Calvin took the idea to its logical conclusion and made it an important centerpiece of his theology.

We cannot understand why God does such a thing, but we must trust that God has a good reason and we must remember that God, being absolutely sovereign, should not be questioned. Indeed, because all humans are sinful and deserve damnation in hell, the fact that any humans are chosen by God to be saved should be treated as a reason to rejoice and praise God's mercy. God does not have to save anyone, but chooses to do so. Instead of questioning how or why God makes such decisions, we should be thankful that we might have some chance at heaven.

According to Calvin, hose who are fortunate enough to be chosen were called the elect by Calvin. They have been redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ and benefits of this state are created by the inner working of the Holy Spirit which provide faith in Christ (no person can have faith on their own). Calvin also differentiated between the visible church, which consisted of the physical church institutions and included by the elect and the unelect, and the invisible church, which was the "real church" and included only the elect.

[Scary Guy]

Yeah but notice I said hope. That part doesn't sit right with me either believe me.

I thought you meant something out of the first part of what I said.

[phee]

Anyway so Steven are saying that it's good that the creationist museum is opening?

[Steven]

Ahh... now you bring up the idea of predestination that the Puritans believed in as spread over Europe by Calvin.... I always thought that whole idea was a bit freaky

me too.